Congressman Paul on the Recent Swine Flu Scare

Irradiated Foods Cause Severe Neurological Damage

NaturalNews.com

by Sherry Baker, Health Sciences Editor

In a study just published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, scientists from the University of Wisconsin-Madison (UW-Madison) report on cats developing severe neurological symptoms due to a degradation of myelin, the fatty insulator of nerve fibers called axons. Because myelin facilitates the conduction of nerve signals, when it is lost or damaged there can be impairment of sensation, movement, thinking and other functions, depending on what particular nerves are affected. This loss of myelin is found in several disorders of the central nervous system in humans -- the best known being multiple sclerosis (MS).

So what caused the cats to develop neurological problems? Although the researchers' statement to the media practically buries the fact, a close read shows the animals were fine until fed irradiated food. What's more, when they were taken off the irradiated diet, the animals' nervous systems began healing.

The new study took place when the researchers were faced with reports of a mysterious illness in pregnant cats. A commercial company had been testing various diets on the animals to see how the food impacted growth and development in the felines. The food used, it turns out, had been irradiated. Irradiation, which is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for many human as well as animal foods, involves exposing foods briefly to a radiant energy source such as gamma rays or electron beams in order to kill bacteria.

Some of the cats eating the irradiated cat food exhibited very severe neurological symptoms, including movement disorders, vision loss and even paralysis. "After being on the diet for three to four months, the pregnant cats started to develop progressive neurological disease," said Ian Duncan, a professor of medical sciences at the UW-Madison School of Veterinary Medicine and an authority on demyelinating diseases, in a statement to the media.

The sick cats were shown to have widely distributed the very severe demyelization of the central nervous system. Their neurological symptoms were very much like those seen in people with MS and other demyelization disorders. When the felines were taken off the irradiated foods, they began to recover slowly. However, according to Dr. Duncan, the restored myelin sheaths were no longer as thick as normal myelin sheaths.

The finding is important, the scientists concluded in their study, because it shows the central nervous system retains the ability to reestablish myelin -- so strategies that could be developed to spur the growth of new myelin sheaths anywhere nerves themselves are preserved could be a possible therapy for treating a host of severe neurological diseases in humans. "The key thing is that it absolutely confirms the notion that remyelinating strategies are clinically important," Duncan stated.

Curiously, although the scientists' related their findings to possible human applications, they were quick to dismiss a possible connection between people, irradiated food and health risk. "We think it is extremely unlikely that (irradiated food) could become a human health problem," Duncan explained in the media statement. "We think it is species specific."

However, not everyone agrees irradiated food is fine for humans or animals. According to the Center for Food Safety, studies have shown irradiation produces volatile toxic chemicals such as benzene and toluene, which are known or suspected to cause cancer and birth defects. A 2001 study found an association between colon tumors and 2-alkylcyclobutanones (2-ACB's), a new chemical compound detected only in foods that have been irradiated.


For more information:

http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/...
http://firedoglake.com/2008/08/23/n...
http://www.fda.gov/opacom/catalog/i...


About the author:

Sherry Baker is a widely published writer whose work has appeared in Newsweek, Health, the Atlanta Journal and Constitution, Yoga Journal, Optometry, Atlanta, Arthritis Today, Natural Healing Newsletter, OMNI, UCLA's "Healthy Years" newsletter, Mount Sinai School of Medicine's "Focus on Health Aging" newsletter, the Cleveland Clinic's "Men's Health Advisor" newsletter and many others.

Breastfeeding Shown to Decrease the Risk of SIDS

NaturalNews.com

by Sheryl Walters, citizen journalist

SIDS is the sudden unexplained death of an infant and is the number one cause of death in U.S babies less than one year old. Fortunately the SIDS rate has dropped over 50% since 1983, but it is still responsible for 2500 deaths each year according to the American SIDS Institute. There are many hypotheses for why SIDS happens but there is no known cause. Factors such as stomach sleeping, a smoker in the house, and blankets in a baby's bed increases the risk. Research has shown that a baby who is breastfed has a much lower risk of dying of SIDS than a formula fed baby.

The benefits of breastfeeding in general are very well known. Breastfed babies are less likely to get infections because of the maternal antibodies in breast milk. Illnesses that they are less likely to get include ear infections, stomach viruses, diarrhea, and respiratory infections. In addition, breastfed babies have a lower risk of obesity, asthma, Type I and II diabetes, and childhood leukemia.

In fact, breastfeeding is known to be so beneficial that the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has included breastfeeding as part of its Healthy People 2010 Objectives. The goals stated in these objectives are to have the percentage of breastfed newborns at 75%, infants still breastfeeding at 6 months old at 50%, and babies breastfeeding at one year old at 25%. Data collected by the CDC in 2004 reported these figures at about 73%, 42%, and 21%, respectively.

In addition to reducing the risk of disease, breastfeeding has been shown to reduce the risk of dying from SIDS. Breastfeeding is beneficial for this for a number of reasons.

*Breathing: Breastmilk is non-irritating to airways like a foreign material such as formula could be. In addition, if aspirated breastmilk is less likely to cause apnea.

*Swallowing: Learning to coordinate swallowing and breathing is important in reducing SIDS risk. Research has shown that breastfed babies learn to coordinate more quickly than bottlefed babies because they are usually fed more often (so they get more practice) and also because breastfed babies tend to have better alignment of the jaw and muscles which helps to keep airways open.

*Reflux: Breastfed babies are less likely to have gastric reflux which can increase risk of SIDS.

*Mother/child connection: Breastfed mothers have hormonal cues that keep them more in tune with their baby during the night. As a result they may be more likely to read changes during their baby's breathing or sleep rhythm.

Breastfeeding is so beneficial to babies in countless ways. Decreasing the risk of SIDS is a huge incentive to encourage mothers to breastfeed their babies.


Sources:

American SIDS Institute, (www.sids.org)

Ask Dr. Sears, (http://www.askdrsears.com/html/10/T...)

Benefits of Breastfeeding, (http://www.womenshealth.gov/breastf...)

Breastfeeding Among U.S. Children Born 1999-2005, CDC National Immunization Survey, (http://www.cdc.gov/breastfeeding/da...)

Red Meat Eaters More Likely to Die from Cancer or Heart Disease

NaturalNews.com

by Louis Lazaris

A controlled study conducted in the U.S by researchers at the National Cancer Institute indicates that men and women whose diets are high in red or processed meats are more likely to die from cancer or heart disease. The study included data collected over a 10-year period between 1995 and 2005, and involved half a million males and females between the ages of 50 and 71.

According to the results of the study, published this week in the Archives of Internal Medicine, those who ate 4 ounces of red meat per day - or a serving equal to a small steak - had a more than 30 percent increased mortality rate compared to those who ate the smallest amount of red meat.

Last week the Ottawa Citizen reported that the Canadian Cancer Society, in response to the study, is planning to change its recommended limit on red and processed meats. Heather Chappell, the Canadian Cancer Society's senior manager of cancer control policy says, "This takes it that next step and actually looks at the impact that has on cancer deaths. This really is a significant addition to our body of knowledge in this area."

322,263 men and 223,390 women from eight U.S. states filled out questionnaires detailing their usual food and drink consumption. The red meat included beef, cold cuts, hamburger, liver, pork, sausage, as well as meats in prepared meals such as pizza and lasagna. White meat included chicken, turkey, fish, cold cuts, tuna, and sausages made from poultry.

The heaviest meat eaters ate about 8 1/2 servings of meat per week and had a 31 percent increase in mortality rates in comparison to the lightest meat eaters, who consumed about one serving of meat per week.

Jennifer Macey of Australia's AM radio broadcast interviewed one of the authors of the study, Dr. Rashmi Sinha, to inquire about methods used to ensure that results were due to red and processed meat consumption and not due to other factors.

Sinha explains, "We were controlled for many different factors such as body mass index, family history of cancer, alcohol intake, education, smoking, other dietary factors, so we tried to control to the best of our ability with the information that we had."

The researchers reported that if the lowest level of intake of meats was consumed by all participants, 11 percent of deaths in men and 16 percent of deaths in women could have been prevented.

Cancer deaths increased by 22 percent, and cardiovascular-related deaths increased by 27 percent among the heavy meat eaters that were male. For females, the increases in death rates among the heavy meat eaters were 20 percent for cancer and 50 percent for heart disease.

This study was much broader in scope than past studies that have compared death rates in different types of meat eaters. Prior studies have been conducted involving vegetarian populations in the U.S. and Europe, as well as on Seventh-Day Adventists, who promote a vegetarian diet.

Sinha explained, "They combined their results, so it was a bit more ambiguous. This is a big study. That's what's interesting."

These results come on the heels of a similar study conducted in the U.K. that analyzed data from 52,700 men and women. In that U.K. study, those that did not eat meat had a significantly lower risk of cancer than those that did eat meat.


Sources:

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/20...
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/health...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sevent...

How To Legally Say "NO" To All Vaccines!

By: Crusador Interviews Book Author & Acclaimed International Vaccine Expert Dr. Sherri Tenpenny

http://www.healthtruthrevealed.com

March 20, 2009

Millions of Americans have come to distrust vaccines and mainstream medicine’s vaccine agenda. There is a growing movement in this country and around the world that questions the safety and effectiveness of all vaccines for obvious reasons. Many childhood disorders such as autism, ADD/ADHD, SIDS and others have been linked to vaccines. Thousands of soldiers who served in the military have been severely disabled or in some cases even died after receiving their mandated shots. Vaccines are the most controversial subject in all of medicine.

The standard line heard from most parents once their eyes are open to the risks of vaccines is, “How will I get my child into day care or in school without their shots.” Those working in the healthcare field or soldiers in the military are faced with similar questions.

To help educate the people further about how to legally avoid all vaccines, Dr. Sherri Tenpenny has put together a brand new book that is absolutely necessary to have in your possession if you (or a loved one) don’t want to vaccinate but are not sure how to get around it. As Dr. Tenpenny says on the back cover of her book, “Saying No To Vaccines is not intended to be a balanced view of vaccination literature. Pro-vaccine information is readily accessible through the American Academy of Pediatrics, the CDC, healthcare and government-sponsored organizations. This book balances the debate.”

Below is a copy of an interview Crusador editor Greg Ciola conducted with Dr. Tenpenny shortly after the release of her new book.

Crusador: What was the impetus for writing your new book “Saying NO To Vaccines”?

Parents needed a tool that did their homework for them. The evidence is there to support their decision to not vaccinate; you just have to do a little work to find it. Everyone seems to be so afraid of “bugs” and their potential ability to make us sick. But the reality is that we swim in “bugs” every day and we are not dropping over like flies. The only “bugs” we seem to obsess over are associated with vaccines. Only two generations ago, measles, mumps and chickenpox were normal experiences of childhood. Why we have complete fear of these infections is media and money driven and unfounded.

If the focus of Public Health was on sleep, exercise, clean water and safe, non-GMO food, we would have a healthy society without vaccines…but we would not have billion dollar industries employing millions of people to keep us “healthy.” The fact is, we are a very UNhealthy society with vaccines, so the Public health and argument that we must vaccinate ‘for greater good’ is a failure.

I put a large body of research into my first book, FOWL! and my two DVDS, documenting the dangers of vaccination. “Saying No To Vaccines” was the next logical step. It answers the question, “I’ve decided not to vaccinate, now what do I do?”

Crusador: What are some of the issues you cover in the book that aren’t covered in your two DVD’s “Vaccines: The Risks, The Benefits, The Choices” and “Vaccines: What CDC Documents and Science Reveal”?

There is very little overlap between Saying No to Vaccines and the DVDs. The foundational premise of the book is to give answers refuting the 25 most common arguments used to promote vaccination. For example, parents are often told the vaccine-preventable diseases of childhood can be serious and if their child is not vaccinated, their child could die. I tell them how to refute that argument and give documentation from the medical literature to demonstrate that statement is nothing more than fear mongering. Parents are told by pediatricians there is “no evidence that vaccination harms the immune system” and there is “no evidence that vaccination can lead to chronic disease.” I used the medical literature to prove the opposite is true.

Crusador: What are the most common questions you get about vaccines?

The most frequently-asked question I get is about vaccination exemption, meaning, “How do I refuse the vaccine and still get my kids into school or keep my job,” so by design a large part of the book covers exemptions. I included a lot of detail on how to avoid vaccinations for school situations, including college, professional situations where a job may require certain vaccines, if you are in a nursing home, foreign adoption, the military, even if you are incarcerated. I have also included a chapter on frequently- asked questions about vaccination. Saying No To Vaccines has an entire section on “most frequently asked questions.”

Crusador: There is a huge divide in this country between those who think you should vaccinate versus those who feel you shouldn’t. The majority is still on the side of thinking that vaccines are THE answer to long-term immunity. When you do speaking engagements or radio interviews or simply talk to a pregnant woman about the need to question the safety of vaccines further, how do you present your information to make someone think twice?

Even though I strongly believe that vaccines cause more harm than the “good” they supposedly do, it is important for people to see the evidence of harm – from a scientific perspective – and not just take my word for it. All of my information, every slide and every paragraph in my book, is referenced from a highly reputable medical journal or from the Centers for Disease Control, the CDC. People can see for themselves the one-sided, biased view of the vaccine industry, promoting that vaccines are “safe” and “protective.” Almost 100% of the time, once people pull back the veil and see the rest of the story, they know that vaccination is not what the drug companies claim it to be.

Crusador: Do you feel that there is such a thing as a “safe” vaccine? If there isn’t, how do you counter the mainstream medical mentality that vaccines may not be entirely without risks, but those risks are far less than the risks we would face without vaccines at all?

I really felt that parents needed strong answers for when they decided to not vaccinate. Very few people are willing to say something. The risk of the vaccine is greater than the risk of the disease. The “Green Our Vaccines” movement was partially behind the reason I wrote this book. Many activists, people with very good intentions, hedge and put their support behind “safer” vaccines which are a chemical impossibility. People just need to SAY NO.

Crusador: Tell our readers a little more about the exemption clauses you discuss in your book. The medical establishment has done a terrific job of intimidating people into thinking they have to take vaccines and yet, rarely if ever will you hear about the ways to exempt yourself and family from taking vaccines.

A medical exemption is available in all 50 states but must be recommended by a doctor. The exemption can be difficult to obtain and often, it only excuses future vaccination with a shot that has already caused a severe reaction.

There are three exemptions available in this country – medical, religious and philosophical. As of now, 19 states accept a philosophical exemption. It is the easiest of the three to use. You request a form from the school nurse, state the reasons you don’t want to vaccinate your child, sign it and give it to the school. Generally, that’s it. However, different school systems have different rules. Some require the form annually, some require both parents to sign the exemption form, some require it to be notarized and so forth. You can find links to your state laws and more information by going to www.DrTenpenny.com .

Religious exemptions are available in all other states except West Virginia and Mississippi (which only have medical exemptions). Religious exemptions can be tricky and in some states, very difficult to obtain and defend. I often recommend that people consult an attorney for this type of exemption. Some states, such as New York and New Jersey, are difficult. New York has been known to use something called a “sincerity test.” Parents are literally interrogated by an attorney representing the school district regarding how sincere their religious assertions are for refusing a vaccine. A panel then decides if you are sincere enough in your beliefs to allow you to refuse vaccination on religious ground. I find these tactics absolutely appalling and akin to Inquisitioners of the Middle Ages.

Crusador: Where do you see the whole pro-vaccine movement going and what threats to our Constitutional freedoms do you see coming down the pike?

The dogged determination of those who oppose vaccines, and in particular mandatory vaccination, has gained traction at a grass roots level and garnered a lot of attention from the media. I feel that we have the pro-vaccinators on the ropes. Our arguments are hard to deny and the global autism epidemic can no longer be ignored. Pro-vaccinators are using manipulation, threats and fear tactics, trying to convince everyone that vaccines are not only safe but absolutely necessary. I see the vaccine industry like a wounded Tyrannosaurus Rex, gnashing its teeth and flailing its ugly head. It won’t die quickly and it will probably get worse before it gets better.

Crusador: There are many people in this country, myself included, who are concerned that there is an evil agenda to mass vaccinate the entire planet in the event of a health emergency. Do you feel that there are genuine reasons to be concerned and what might we expect to see unfold in an emergency?

Executive orders and recommendations from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have been written that stop just short of allowing government-enforced mandatory vaccination for anthrax, smallpox and bird flu. The only way to change these policies is by standing together and boldly saying no.

Crusador: Are you still confident that with enough knowledge about the risks and dangers of vaccines enough people will wake up and say NO before Big Pharma forces its will upon the populace?

I’m not sure. People tend to be sheep – Americans in particular. Look what we have allowed a small number in the White House and 545 people in Congress to do to our country. And even those people who want to effect a change have little time and few resources to do so. No one wants to stand out, speak up and challenge authority. Whatever happened to those bra-burning activists of the 1960s? However, people really are involved now, more than ever. It only takes a small, vocal minority to really make a difference. As stated years ago by Margaret Mead, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed it is the only thing that ever has.”

Crusador: Thank you for your time, Sherri. These are excellent answers. I encourage everyone reading this interview to make every effort they can to get a copy of your new book and share it with their friends and loved ones because it is a great tool to give the average person confidence to “SAY NO TO VACCINES”.

Thank you, Greg for helping me get this message out to more people.